Viewpoint: A feminist perspective on the Jill Abramson firing

The dismissal of Jill Abramson from her post as New York Times Executive Editor has inspired an avalanche of media, from think pieces on gender inequality to combative articles on the salary gap. Most have speculated on the reasoning behind her exit.

From a feminist perspective, however, it is important to examine the ways can we use feminism to discuss newsroom dynamics, language regarding women leaders and statistics on female journalists.

To analyze newsroom culture, let’s start by taking a look at its technical opposite: blogging from home.

Technological advances and remote reporting, which makes it possible to write the majority of a piece behind the safety of a laptop while in your pajamas, seems to be at least somewhat helpful in curbing the sexism female journalists often face.

There’s no need to greet your laptop in constricting panty hose and heels. The anonymity of Internet trolls is, at least, not your boss saying similarly veiled words from behind his desk. Women reporters, among others commonly pushed out of male-dominated spaces, are given a bit more wiggle room to take back the narrative — in essence, some of the culture of a traditional newsroom falls away.

Of course not everyone works as if they’re in an episode of Mad Men, but there is something to be said for the “good ol’ boys” mentality that still circulates offices and journalism as a whole. So what happens when one of the most powerful women in journalism is confined to this male-dominated space?

Abramson was the first woman to hold the NYT’s Executive Editor job and her time in the position was short-lived. In fact, in several years’ time the recollection of her name may bring up discussions of diversity quotas as opposed to the multiple Pulitzer Prizes won under her direction (likewise, her replacement and The Time’s first African American Executive Editor Dean Baquet may be unfairly labeled as a push towards a quota).

Upon her abrupt departure from the paper, reports have come out describing Abramson as “pushy” and “unreasonable” — reports that too rely on a language that is, of course, often used to absurdly discredit and compare women as the unstable emotional ones to men’s logical reliability.

Analysis of this language is critical in understanding how women leaders are often treated — disrupting power structures typically held by the hegemonic is often met with hostility.

Regardless of her leadership style, labeling Abramson in this way automatically places her in a camp generally reserved for women, and thereby invalidating her for the job in many people’s eyes. (For the record, Google’s first search prompt following “Jill Abramson” is “bitchy.”)

Aja Frost, English major at California Polytechnic State University, believes it boils down to traits that are often deemed not “socially acceptable” for women.

“This feels like yet another case of a woman being ‘punished’ for being too assertive and demanding.”

So when it comes down to it, can we point to sexism in the newsroom as a main contributor to Abramson’s abrupt firing?

Statistically, yes.

In a report released last year, The American Society of News Editors found that two-thirds of newsrooms are comprised of male employees. This includes editors, layout and online producers, reporters, photographers and videographers.

A recent survey from Indiana University found that mid-level, women journalists typically earn 17% less than men who perform the same job, a statistic that could equate to nearly $300,000 difference over a 30-year career. And typically, the higher a woman goes in the journalism world, the larger the wage gap becomes when compared to her male colleagues.

Abramson was evidently not immune to this same pay inequity. Though some point to her decision to hire a second managing editor without clearly notifying the first, many sources claim her wage gap was the main contributor toward her firing.

Abramson’s salary was $84,000 less per year than the male editor she had replaced, according to some sources.

After two protests over her wages, her salary was raised, but was still $34,000 short. She had recently hired an attorney to investigate these lower wages, and some sources believe it was this and Abramson’s repeated questioning over her salary that led to her firing.

This was a rare and large stage, but a common event nonetheless. Women are frequently taken out of newsrooms, and Abramson was no exception.

We may have to reevaluate the role of gender discrimination as the sole reason for her dismissal, but in the meantime it is important to look at how this landmark action affects women in the newsroom.

By studying Abramson’s exit and how it has been received from a feminist perspective, we can get a better understanding of how to address this problem for ourselves and others.